People, actually watch football before you post crap. Just because he is offically the RCB, doesn't mean he only plays on the right side. Teams put their #1 CB on the other teams' #1 WR all the time. And you would know that by even watching a couple football games.

Not all teams do. The Dolphins don't and the Cowboys don't.

Like I said, the vast majority of NFL teams have their corners set as a LCB and a RCB. The schemes are already intricate and complex enough as it is. If they had to start changing everything around just because the other teams receiver lined up on a different side of the field it would be absolutely ridiculous.

Are you serious? Most teams will matchup their cornerbacks on certain receivers to get the best matchups possible. Otherwise, teams would just keep putting their star receivers against weaker cornerbacks.

What teams do is they play their best man-to-man corner at the LCB spot. Almost every NFL team's best corner is the LCB, with a few notable exceptions like Detroit [Dre Bly], Buffalo [Nate Clements], Green Bay [Al Harris], and [I think, but I'm not 100% sure] Seattle [Marcus Trufant]. The LCB is lined up over the opposing team's Z receiver [most teams' #2 receiver] and is given the task of shutting him down in single coverage.

With the LCB shutting the Z down by himself, it allows the strong safety to play the run more agressively. In turn, the RCB and free safety double cover the X receiver [usually the number 1 receiver].

Quite frankly, the demands of playing LCB are far, far more demanding. Al Harris came to the Packers as a nickleback in Philadelphia and took over the RCB spot because Mike McKenzie was firmly entrenched at LCB. Common sense dictates that if Harris was able to play LCB, they wouldn't have spent a bunch of draft picks on highly athletic corners [LCB prototypes]. RCBs are easy to replace. LCBs aren't.

People, actually watch football before you post crap. Just because he is offically the RCB, doesn't mean he only plays on the right side. Teams put their #1 CB on the other teams' #1 WR all the time. And you would know that by even watching a couple football games.

Not all teams do. The Dolphins don't and the Cowboys don't.

Like I said, the vast majority of NFL teams have their corners set as a LCB and a RCB. The schemes are already intricate and complex enough as it is. If they had to start changing everything around just because the other teams receiver lined up on a different side of the field it would be absolutely ridiculous.

Are you serious? Most teams will matchup their cornerbacks on certain receivers to get the best matchups possible. Otherwise, teams would just keep putting their star receivers against weaker cornerbacks.

What teams do is they play their best man-to-man corner at the LCB spot. Almost every NFL team's best corner is the LCB, with a few notable exceptions like Detroit [Dre Bly], Buffalo [Nate Clements], Green Bay [Al Harris], and [I think, but I'm not 100% sure] Seattle [Marcus Trufant]. The LCB is lined up over the opposing team's Z receiver [most teams' #2 receiver] and is given the task of shutting him down in single coverage.

With the LCB shutting the Z down by himself, it allows the strong safety to play the run more agressively. In turn, the RCB and free safety double cover the X receiver [usually the number 1 receiver].

Quite frankly, the demands of playing LCB are far, far more demanding. Al Harris came to the Packers as a nickleback in Philadelphia and took over the RCB spot because Mike McKenzie was firmly entrenched at LCB. Common sense dictates that if Harris was able to play LCB, they wouldn't have spent a bunch of draft picks on highly athletic corners [LCB prototypes]. RCBs are easy to replace. LCBs aren't.

That is only certain in some schemes and defensive plays. Most teams will matchup their best cover corner on the opposing teams best wide receiver. Also, #1 receivers are very rarely left in single man-to-man coverage.

People, actually watch football before you post crap. Just because he is offically the RCB, doesn't mean he only plays on the right side. Teams put their #1 CB on the other teams' #1 WR all the time. And you would know that by even watching a couple football games.

Not all teams do. The Dolphins don't and the Cowboys don't.

Like I said, the vast majority of NFL teams have their corners set as a LCB and a RCB. The schemes are already intricate and complex enough as it is. If they had to start changing everything around just because the other teams receiver lined up on a different side of the field it would be absolutely ridiculous.

Are you serious? Most teams will matchup their cornerbacks on certain receivers to get the best matchups possible. Otherwise, teams would just keep putting their star receivers against weaker cornerbacks.

What teams do is they play their best man-to-man corner at the LCB spot. Almost every NFL team's best corner is the LCB, with a few notable exceptions like Detroit [Dre Bly], Buffalo [Nate Clements], Green Bay [Al Harris], and [I think, but I'm not 100% sure] Seattle [Marcus Trufant]. The LCB is lined up over the opposing team's Z receiver [most teams' #2 receiver] and is given the task of shutting him down in single coverage.

With the LCB shutting the Z down by himself, it allows the strong safety to play the run more agressively. In turn, the RCB and free safety double cover the X receiver [usually the number 1 receiver].

Quite frankly, the demands of playing LCB are far, far more demanding. Al Harris came to the Packers as a nickleback in Philadelphia and took over the RCB spot because Mike McKenzie was firmly entrenched at LCB. Common sense dictates that if Harris was able to play LCB, they wouldn't have spent a bunch of draft picks on highly athletic corners [LCB prototypes]. RCBs are easy to replace. LCBs aren't.

That is only certain in some schemes and defensive plays. Most teams will matchup their best cover corner on the opposing teams best wide receiver. Also, #1 receivers are very rarely left in single man-to-man coverage.

That's what I said. Most #1 receivers are X receivers. The RCB and FS are usually in double coverage on him.

My vote goes to the Wood. He is possibly my favorite collegiate player of all time and I am fiercly loyal to him. I think he will turn his game around with a new change of scenery.

Most of those guys are just cover 2 guys who sit in the flat (Bly, Vasher, etc.). I think guys like that are overrated. Sure they have nice ball skills, I will give them that, but I like cover ability and that is what the Wood brings. I think those cover 2 guys are more effective because of their system, not their talent.

My vote goes to the Wood. He is possibly my favorite collegiate player of all time and I am fiercly loyal to him. I think he will turn his game around with a new change of scenery.

Most of those guys are just cover 2 guys who sit in the flat (Bly, Vasher, etc.). I think guys like that are overrated. Sure they have nice ball skills, I will give them that, but I like cover ability and that is what the Wood brings. I think those cover 2 guys are more effective because of their system, not their talent.

Performing in a system is talent. Woodson couldn't cut it in the cover 2.

People, actually watch football before you post crap. Just because he is offically the RCB, doesn't mean he only plays on the right side. Teams put their #1 CB on the other teams' #1 WR all the time. And you would know that by even watching a couple football games.

Not all teams do. The Dolphins don't and the Cowboys don't.

Like I said, the vast majority of NFL teams have their corners set as a LCB and a RCB. The schemes are already intricate and complex enough as it is. If they had to start changing everything around just because the other teams receiver lined up on a different side of the field it would be absolutely ridiculous.

Are you serious? Most teams will matchup their cornerbacks on certain receivers to get the best matchups possible. Otherwise, teams would just keep putting their star receivers against weaker cornerbacks.

What teams do is they play their best man-to-man corner at the LCB spot. Almost every NFL team's best corner is the LCB, with a few notable exceptions like Detroit [Dre Bly], Buffalo [Nate Clements], Green Bay [Al Harris], and [I think, but I'm not 100% sure] Seattle [Marcus Trufant]. The LCB is lined up over the opposing team's Z receiver [most teams' #2 receiver] and is given the task of shutting him down in single coverage.

With the LCB shutting the Z down by himself, it allows the strong safety to play the run more agressively. In turn, the RCB and free safety double cover the X receiver [usually the number 1 receiver].

Quite frankly, the demands of playing LCB are far, far more demanding. Al Harris came to the Packers as a nickleback in Philadelphia and took over the RCB spot because Mike McKenzie was firmly entrenched at LCB. Common sense dictates that if Harris was able to play LCB, they wouldn't have spent a bunch of draft picks on highly athletic corners [LCB prototypes]. RCBs are easy to replace. LCBs aren't.

In 2003, Al Harris was the nickelback coming from Phillie and a pair of pro-bowlers in front of him. He had Mckenzie at LCB, who was the starter there and had the experience in GB's system. Then Mike MCKenzie stuck his head far up his rectum and went away, and starting in 2004, Al Harris went against the opposing team's top guy for 90% of the plays. It does effect coverage when the CB has to switch sides, but as Ahmad Carroll had been Mike Sherman's wunderkin and placed as the #2 CB, it had to be done. Look at the Carlolina game from last year. He followed Steve Smith the entire game, and Steve had two catches. Think that the Bears wouldn't have LOVED to have had Harris rather than Vasher in the playoffs?

Al Harris is a press corner, not a cover 2 guy. He is rarely in zone coverage, which allows you to get more tackles and picks as your first job isn't to lock down the opposing receiver. That means you get fewer tackles as the WR you are locking up with gets a head start at blocking you on run downs. It also means that if you are doing your job correctly, you have disrupted the route the WR is running and the QB throws to his next option, thus you do not get the int chance.

My vote goes to the Wood. He is possibly my favorite collegiate player of all time and I am fiercly loyal to him. I think he will turn his game around with a new change of scenery.

Most of those guys are just cover 2 guys who sit in the flat (Bly, Vasher, etc.). I think guys like that are overrated. Sure they have nice ball skills, I will give them that, but I like cover ability and that is what the Wood brings. I think those cover 2 guys are more effective because of their system, not their talent.

Performing in a system is talent. Woodson couldn't cut it in the cover 2.

I am not trying to say guys like Vasher aren't talented. I am just saying that I think it is more difficult to play lock down man coverage than it is to just sit in a flat all day. Guys like Bly get all this credit because they get so many picks, but people don't realize how often guys like Bly get burned (by Antonio Bryant).

Outside of Dre Bly's issues with Harrington, he is the best CB in the NFC North when he doesn't have a broken hand. Anybody that says any Bears CB needs to be beaten. And Keith Smith shouldn't even be on this poll.

I'd also like to know how Dre Bly is overrated. He's virtually ignored on this site and no one in the league even bothers to mention him despite the fact that he's been very good for the last few years.

Outside of Dre Bly's issues with Harrington, he is the best CB in the NFC North when he doesn't have a broken hand. Anybody that says any Bears CB needs to be beaten. And Keith Smith shouldn't even be on this poll.

I'd also like to know how Dre Bly is overrated. He's virtually ignored on this site and no one in the league even bothers to mention him despite the fact that he's been very good for the last few years.

The only reason Keith Smith is on this poll is because I put all the starting CB's, and just to be fair I included him. Dre Bly is a very good cornerback, and has excellent coverage skills. He also allows very few receptions.

Outside of Dre Bly's issues with Harrington, he is the best CB in the NFC North when he doesn't have a broken hand. Anybody that says any Bears CB needs to be beaten. And Keith Smith shouldn't even be on this poll.

I'd also like to know how Dre Bly is overrated. He's virtually ignored on this site and no one in the league even bothers to mention him despite the fact that he's been very good for the last few years.

Outside of Dre Bly's issues with Harrington, he is the best CB in the NFC North when he doesn't have a broken hand. Anybody that says any Bears CB needs to be beaten. And Keith Smith shouldn't even be on this poll.

I'd also like to know how Dre Bly is overrated. He's virtually ignored on this site and no one in the league even bothers to mention him despite the fact that he's been very good for the last few years.

Oh whatever. Bly is, at best, on the same level as Vasher. Broken hand or not he gets burnt a LOT, sure he makes up for it with great plays from time to time but I'd take Harris or Winfield over him anyday. It's become somewhat vogue to bash on Vasher as of late but nobody can argue that he's a 2nd year player in the league that only makes plays. Ronde Barber benefits from being in the cover 2 as well, nobody seems to have the same problems with him. In terms of longterm potential the Bears are VASTLY ahead of all other teams in the North at the cornerback position. Deserves to be beaten? Anyone that mentions any Lions player for best anything deserves to be beaten.

Outside of Dre Bly's issues with Harrington, he is the best CB in the NFC North when he doesn't have a broken hand. Anybody that says any Bears CB needs to be beaten. And Keith Smith shouldn't even be on this poll.

I'd also like to know how Dre Bly is overrated. He's virtually ignored on this site and no one in the league even bothers to mention him despite the fact that he's been very good for the last few years.

Oh whatever. Bly is, at best, on the same level as Vasher. Broken hand or not he gets burnt a LOT, sure he makes up for it with great plays from time to time but I'd take Harris or Winfield over him anyday. It's become somewhat vogue to bash on Vasher as of late but nobody can argue that he's a 2nd year player in the league that only makes plays. Ronde Barber benefits from being in the cover 2 as well, nobody seems to have the same problems with him. In terms of longterm potential the Bears are VASTLY ahead of all other teams in the North at the cornerback position. Deserves to be beaten? Anyone that mentions any Lions player for best anything deserves to be beaten.

It's not ridiculous to consider one of the Bears CB's the best. I personally don't think they are, but they are both really good and should be at least considered.